Potential of Coffee Tourism For Rural Development in Ethiopia A Sustainable Livelihood Approach

Environment, Development and Sustainability
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00610-7
Potential of coffee tourism for rural development in Ethiopia:

a sustainable livelihood approach
Tamagn Woyesa1 · Satinder Kumar2
Received: 30 March 2019 / Accepted: 17 January 2020

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract
The issue of handling conservation and livelihood simultaneously has been a develop-
ment in debate since the 1980s. The discussion brought a sustainable livelihood frame-
work aimed at addressing livelihood, sustainability, and conservation. And later tourism
was added to the sustainable livelihood model as well. This is a conceptual study to exam-
ine the potential of coffee tourism for sustainable livelihood and conservation in south-
west Ethiopia. A model for sustainable coffee tourism development is proposed. The study
found that forest and semi-forest coffee production system which is relatively compatible
with sustainability is losing its significance due to low yield and net profit. As a result,
farmers are diverting to agriculture, which is threatening the survival of the moist montane
ecosystem and the gene pool of wild Arabica coffee. To solve this problem, certification for
specialty forest coffee has been implemented but failed to deliver livelihood improvement
though little progress has been observed in the conservation aspect. It is concluded that
unless a rural development approach compatible with livelihood improvement and conser-
vation implemented, the survival of the montane forest and the gene pool of Arabica cof-
fee is endangered. Therefore, a sustainable livelihood model for coffee tourism compatible
with conservation and livelihood improvement is recommended to make the region a niche
tourism destination.
Keywords Coffee tourism · Rural tourism · Sustainable livelihood · Conservation ·

Livelihoods diversification
1 Introduction
Plenty of shreds of evidence agree that the south-western highlands of Ethiopia are the
origin of coffee and have produced for the last 1100 years. In the sixth century, a man
from Kaffa named Kaldi spotted his goat’s excitement having chewed a coffee plant.
* Tamagn Woyesa
chanfa04@gmail.com
Satinder Kumar
kumarsatinder1981@gmail.com
1
Mizan-Tepi University, Mizan Teferi, Ethiopia
2
Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab, India
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
T. Woyesa, S. Kumar
So that Kaldi tried himself, this particular event is remembered as the beginning of an
amazing journey of the world famous bean, coffee (Craves 2011; Senbeta and Denich
2006; Aerts et al. 2011; Crawford 1852; Teixeira and Ribeiro 2013). Since then, cof-
fee has been elevated to the status of the sacred, spiritual, social, and economic life of
Ethiopians (Veselinovic 2015; Tibebu 2018). According to Jeffrey (2017), the very term
coffee itself was named after the province of Kaffa where coffee bean first discovered,
though some sources like Luttinger and Dicum (2006) associated the term to a Turk-
ish word “Kaveh” which led to the birth of “coffee” in English dictionary. It was in the
fifteenth century Ethiopia started wild coffee trade in small capacity largely via the port
of Zayla and “a truly coffee economy emerged” in the second half of the sixteenth cen-
tury (Gervase et al. 2003). Since then, coffee gradually developed as a main agricultural
product of the country and maintains the livelihood of over 20 million people. It was
400,000 metric tons reported to have been exported in 2018 (Guess 2018; Gole and Sen-
beta 2008). The figure is even predicted to reach about 441,000 metric tons, while the
export forecast is about 240,000 metric tons in 2019/2020. These data place Ethiopia as
the number one coffee producer in Africa and tenth in the world (Bickford 2019).
The problem is that coffee grows in biologically sensitive areas of Montane rain-
forests which account for 25% of the total production and contains significant species
of avian, insectivore species, reptiles, plants, epiphytes and many other essential biodi-
versity (Buechley et al. 2015; Guess 2018; Gole and Senbeta 2008). More importantly,
this threatened forest ecosystem contains a global genetic diversity of Arabica coffee so
that a bioclimatically conducive environment is declining rapidly not only endangering
biodiversity but also millions of people’s livelihood (Hirons et al. 2018). The previous
development effort neither produced successful conservation nor improved the liveli-
hood of the local community as expected. In addition to that coffee producers face entry
barriers associated with international market structure (McClumpha 1988); climate
change (Hirons et al. 2018; Ponte 2002); seasonality and price fluctuation increased vul-
nerability (Giovannucci et al. 2008; Takahashi and Todo 2016; Kuma et al. 2018; Diro
et al. 2019); and endemic rural poverty in coffee-growing regions (Dietz et al. 2019).
As it is happening in many parts of the world, the solution in Ethiopia has been in Cer-
tification of Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS) (Minten et al. 2018) proposed to
address problem of smallholding farmers by providing a premium price for shade coffee
producers in order that ecological conservation and livelihood improvement achieved
(Vellema et al. 2015). However, the certification project failed to deliver enough eco-
nomic improvement and biological conservation as predicted (Takahashi and Todo
2016; Hundera et al. 2013; El Ouaamari and Cochet 2014).
Having observed effect of certification programme among Ethiopian farmers, El
Ouaamari and Cochet (2014) recommended the need for alternative local development
strategy integrating coffee, environmental concern, and the livelihood. Therefore, the
purpose of this research is to explore why coffee tourism is a prospect of fulfilling con-
servation and sustainable rural livelihood development goals in south-western Ethio-
pian? The main objective is to investigate on the need of combining coffee and tourism
so that coffee tourism would be a niche market segment for sustainable environmental
conservation and livelihood improvement. Most of the studies in Ethiopia largely focus
on biological, environmental, and certified specialty aspects of coffee than tourism per-
spectives. As per our knowledge, one author investigates general aspects of challenges
and prospects of coffee tourism in Ethiopia (Yun 2014). Therefore, this study would add
some insight into the potential of coffee tourism development in Ethiopia, the birthplace
of coffee.
13
Potential of coffee tourism for rural development in Ethiopia:…
1.1 Coffee production system and livelihood diversification
Coffee in Ethiopia is harvested from plantation, garden, forest, and semi-forest set-
tings. Plantation coffee accounts for about 10% of the total production undertaken in
large estates in a mechanized way. Garden coffee, on the other hand, represents 50%
and grows around the homestead with other crops, occasionally with the seedling relo-
cated from the adjacent forest, while forest coffee is a self-growing natural coffee in the
shadow of other trees sometimes requires minimum management and believed to have
the best flavour. The fourth category is semi-forest coffee (35% of the production) where
human intervention is necessary to get rid of needless plant species that hinder growth
to allow an optimum level of shade in the forest (Craves 2011; Senbeta and Denich
2006; Gole and Senbeta 2008). One of the themes of the paper is addressing the synergy
between forest and semi-forest coffee that covers 240, 000 hectares of land area with
tourism for sustainable rural development (Boansi 2013). The paper used forest coffee
and wild coffee interchangeably to describe coffee that grows naturally in primary for-
est, while semi-forest and shade coffee similarly to indicate the coffee production sys-
tem with minimal human involvement in semi-wild settings.
Among the non-timber forest products (NTFP) of south-western Ethiopia, the contri-
bution of wild coffee takes a significant share. Studies in the region show that income
earned form NTFPs correlates positively with the total land holding (Melaku et al.
2014). It means that the community needs to expand the farmland deep into the forest
to increase income, which in turn harms biodiversity. The attachment of coffee with a
traditional livelihood in the country is so deep to the extent that about 90% of coffee is
produced by a smallholder (Veselinovic 2015; Bickford 2019). However, a forest-based
environmentally sustainable coffee production system is diminishing as forests being
cleared for agriculture and settlement purposes (Senbeta and Denich 2006; Hundera
et al. 2013).
It has been learned that biological conservation would not succeed unless the surround-
ing community benefits economically (Shoo and Songorwa 2013). It means, maintaining a
forest coffee system that is relatively compatible with environment, income earned from the
production system has to exceed agriculture or other alternative land-use systems. There-
fore, increased income earning from forest coffee is necessary to discourage the expansion
of agricultural land to a forest (Gole and Senbeta 2008; Senbeta and Denich 2006). None-
theless, the low yield of coffee prevents farmers from acquiring increased income, which is
why almost 50% of forest coffee produced in Latin America were transformed into sun cof-
fee production system in the late twentieth century (Perfecto et al. 1996). However, due to
policy intervention, the production system is getting almost reversed to an environmentally
sustainable system in Colombia and other Latin American countries (Rueda and Lambin
2013; Sanchez-Cuervo et al. 2012). Hence, it is possible to infer that producers of forest
coffee are either looking for modern coffee cultivation or alternative crop production if
their livelihoods need is not meet.
In Ethiopia, farmers are removing trees for agriculture as a result of that growth of
semi-forest coffee species depend on tree canopy is in dangered (Craves 2011; Senbeta and
Denich 2006). The main reason for deforestation is the search for additional land since 90
to 95% of coffee production in Ethiopia is supplied by smallholder farmers with an average
of 0.5 ha of land (Gole and Senbeta 2008).
Unless income diversification effort is in place, farmers keep clearing forests to increase
agricultural land, in effect causing forest degradation and elimination of biologically
13
T. Woyesa, S. Kumar
essential wild coffee is imminent. Therefore, the Afromontane forest of south-western

Ethiopian highland, which is famous for the abundance of wild coffee, traditional liveli-
hood, and its drainage system that supplies rivers to neighbouring countries endangered as
well (Agize and Van der 2016; Bognetteau et al. 2007). Two of the main hubs of these eco-
logical regions are Sheka and Bench-Maji zones wherein forest coffee grows and is experi-
encing the same problem of deterioration. For this reason, diversification efforts to ensure
sustainable traditional livelihood in the forest coffee landscape have to consider the need
for local context, global market, climate issue, and improvement in an ecosystem (Jha et al.
2014; WCC-PFM 2014; Agize and Van der 2016).
2 Methods
For this paper, a systematic conceptual review of existing relevant literature was under-
taken. About 200 studies were reviewed to identify existing research themes and identify
future research needs through document analysis that requires a methodical procedure of
examination and interpretations (Petticrew and Roberts 2006; Bowen 2009). The relevance
to the topic of study is taken as exclusion and inclusion criteria of documents and to pro-
duce themes. Thereby, the thematic analysis of organization and categorization of ideas
and concepts produced the synthesis of the following main themes: coffee production sys-
tem in Ethiopia, in situ conservation and wild coffee certification, coffee tourism and genet
conservation of Arabica coffee, the relation between coffee and rural tourism, and why sus-
tainable livelihood model for coffee tourism is required.
2.1 Study areas
The tropical rainforest of south-western Ethiopia highland is not only the origin of cof-
fee bean and is endowed with forest coffee but also honey, spices, and other varieties of
biodiversity but also includes UNESCO-recognized Sheka biosphere reserve (Agize and
Van der 2016). It is for this reason that the study focused on this specific region. The pur-
pose of including the Bench-Maji zone is where 13,456.6 hectares of coffee forest was
secured by the Participatory Forest Management (PFM) agreements in Sheko woreda, and
2827 in Gurafarda woreda (Gobeze et al. 2009; Lemenih 2013; Shenkute et al. 2012). The
study area can be classified as a broadleaved Afro-montane forest (950–2500 m above sea
level) with low or no coffee production. If there is any coffee production beyond 2200 m
above sea level, it should be mainly for domestic consumption (NTFP-PFM 2009, 2013).
Mid-altitude ranging from 1100 to 1950 m above sea level is the second region of forest
system suitable for broadleaved Afro-montane transitional forest where lowland forest with
highland plant species intermingled (Friis, 1992 cited in NTFP-PFM 2013). Third, tropical
forest with an elevation range from 900 to 1800 m above sea level is especially conducive
for coffee growth. It is where the shade helps coffee to grow slow, dense, and with good fla-
vour (Schmitt and Grote 2008; Jeffrey 2017). Fourthly, the transitional forest is the nucleus
of wild Arabica coffee, mainly found in Sheko, Yeki woreda, and Southern Bench woredas
(NTFP-PFM 2013). A NTFP-PFM report shows that 56.8% of the whole study area is cov-
ered by forest, while Andaracha woreda is the most densely forested (70%) (Bekele and
Tesfaye 2013) (Fig. 1).
13
Fig. 1 Study Area, Sheka administrative Zone
2.2 Coffee and rural tourism
The premise of this topic is that coffee tourism is subset of rural tourism (Boniface 2003)
which believed to have been started in late nineteenth century in Hawaii where coffee was
included as part of luxurious vegetation of the uplands, where some tourists had travel
experience related to coffee in the region (Johnston 2010 cited in Lyon, 2013). The whole
issue is that rural tourism based on coffee would improve community income and may alter
the expansion of agriculture to sensitive forests. The concept of rural tourism has been pop-
ularized in decades mainly to counter the restructuring of western economy that demanded
diversification of rural economy and rejuvenation of rurality (Wilson et al. 2001; Frater
1983; Busby and Rendle 2000; Sharpley 2007; McGehee and Andereck 2004). The term
“Rural tourism” sometimes used interchangeably with “agritourism”, “farm tourism”, and
“farm-based tourism” and sometimes used in a different context (Busby and Rendle, 2000;
Potočnik-Slavič and Schmitz 2013). Even though some sources claim rural tourism is a
comprehensive development approach combining ecotourism, farm tourism, and agritour-
ism in a rural setting, this paper is going to use the terms interchangeably (Brandth and
Haugen 2011).
Lane (1994) described rural tourism as “tourism which takes place in the countryside”
where local population runs small enterprises in a rural setting providing an interactive
experience of nature and culture for tourists. It is also proposed for rejuvenation of rural-
ity such as agriculture, folklore, nature, and landscapes (Hwang and Lee 2015; Lane 1994;
Hall and Mitchell 2000), altering the seasonality effect of tourism income (Hernández et al.
2016; Sharpley 2007); enhancing touristic experience of deeper spiritual significance and
sense of belongingness or attachment with the place (Sharpley and Jepson 2011). Rural
13
T. Woyesa, S. Kumar
activities provided by farmers may include a package of farm parks, staged farm perfor-
mances, shopping in villages, accommodation in the working farm, farm shops, and other
associated experiences (Potočnik-Slavič and Schmitz 2013; Busby and Rendle 2000; Ilbery
et al. 1998).
Based on the concept of rural tourism, it has been recommended that alternative enter-
prises like tourism in the farm setting would help income diversification by redeploying
farm resources to a non-agricultural product, in this case, coffee tourism. It is proposed to
remain on-farm but to convert, diversify, and expand farm activities (Ilbery et al. 1998).
As stated above unless economic gains from forests coffee exceed other livelihood
options, deforestation of the Afromontane forest is impending (Gole et al. 2008). There-
fore, farm diversification in the form of coffee tourism may increase income to deter
deforestation. Expert endorsements for effective rural tourism development, rural areas
need to segment market to identify the types of services they provide depend on tourist
perception, travel behaviour, socio-demographic characteristics, and acquaintance with
the rural environment (Eusebio et al. 2017; Rid et al. 2014). Accordingly, this paper pro-
poses coffee tourism in the working farm of south-western Ethiopia as a niche market of
effective segmentation to enhance alternative farm enterprise and sustainable rural live-
lihood. That in turn makes forest coffee production system economically attractive to
the farmers to enhance sustainability since forest-based livelihood did little to improve
their living (Shackleton et al. 2007).
It is assumed that coffee tourism as a component of rural tourism would be a source
for income diversification and maintenance of sustainable livelihood. In addition to the
coffee landscape, the geographic and cultural features of south-western Ethiopia could
be distinct features for rural tourism. It is an amalgam of agricultural, rural settlement,
cultural landscapes, forest, and homesteads. The homestead garden contains complex
beauty of rural gardens such as false banana garden, vegetable patch, fruit, coffee with
little or no shades, and small eucalyptus woodlots (NTFP-PFM 2013). Coffee pro-
duction above 2200 m above sea level is mainly for domestic consumption but wider
verities of food crops such as maize, teff, wheat, barley, and pulses growing with field
rotation and crop rotation method (NTFP-PFM 2009, 2013). Rural areas shaped by the
traditional agricultural landscape, mountains, hills, and attractive scenery in the coffee-
growing areas are conducive for rural tourism as well (Karlsson and Karlsson 2009).
For instance, coffee tourism site in Guatemala, Colombia, and Mexico (Lyon 2013a, b;
UNESCO 2011; Lyon 2013a), tea tourism in China (Cheng et al. 2012), wine and culi-
nary tourism in some parts of Europe (UNWTO 2018; Hall and Mitchell 2000) fostered
natural and cultural heritage conservation while enhancing economic improvement by
offering the story behind the production, scenery of the garden, and traditions associ-
ated with agriculture as a tourist experience. Moreover, the package of these tourism
products produced a branded regional image for sustainable rural tourism (Karlsson and
Karlsson 2009; Hall and Mitchell 2000).
Like wine tourism in rural Europe, coffee growers in Ethiopia could manage packages
of a rural landscape, scenery, and rural heritage on the working farm. The choice of cof-
fee tourism in rural south-west Ethiopia is not only due to the abundance of coffee but
also easiness to start, good for conservation of natural and cultural heritage, diversifies the
depleting rural economy, and ensures sustainable agriculture (Busby and Rendle 2000;
Wilson et al. 2001; Lyon 2013a, b). Therefore, coffee tourism is conceptualized as follows:
Coffee tourism can be defined as a travel experience in coffee-growing areas to gain
familiarity with history, tradition, and culture of coffee growers (Jolliffe 2010). Coffee
tourism policy is not merely intended to provide alternative income sources but needs to
13
address tourists who travel to experience coffee farms, processing, beverage, and land-
scape, the history, tradition, and culture in the region. This, in turn, helps to build coffee
brand awareness and increasing revenue to the growers (Lyon 2013a, b). That is why Davi-
ron and Ponte (2005) recommended the potential of coffee tourism to overcome obstacles
of poor coffee producers and to take control of the production by adding value in the prod-
uct. Tourism-based value adding is to overcome the international coffee market structure
controlled by multi-national companies beyond the control of producers. As the success of
wine tourism shows, coffee tourism policy should be holistic and included under national
sustainable tourism and rural development policies (UNESCO 2011; Janishevski et al.
2008; Richards 2001). Generally speaking, coffee tourism policy is not merely about coffee
rather rurality as a package of tourist experience, like the West Bengal tea tourism sites,
where tea leaf handpicking, enjoying food with tea, visiting tea plantations, yoga practices,
spas are packaged together (Cheng et al. 2012); even promoted into in the form of coffee
expos, education and training canters, and museums (Yun 2014).
2.3 Coffee tourism and genetic conservation of Arabica coffee
South Ethiopian highlands are the epicentre of wild Arabica coffee gene pool where farm-
ers extract either from forest naturally or with minor management from semi-forest reserves
(Gole and Senbeta 2008; Schmitt et al. 2010). However, the decline in income earned from
forest coffee and price fluctuation in the international market is forcing farmers to divert
their scarce resources from forest economy to agriculture (Union Hand Roasted Coffee
n.d.; Krishnan 2013; Alemayehu and Merga 2017; Belmaker 2016; NTFP-PFM 2009). As
a result of the the expansion of agriculture the total areas of forest covered by wild coffee
reduced below 200 km2 in biodiversity-rich Afromontane and transitional forests (Senbeta
and Denich 2006; Gole et al. 2008); the deforestation is primarily by agriculture (35%)
(Alemayehu and Merga 2017; Krishnan 2013).
Reports by the Royal Botanic Gardens and other studies have warned that Ethiopia’s
wild Arabica coffee will extinct in just 70 years ascribed to climate change (Strand 2012;
Belmaker 2016; Davis et al. 2012; Reay 2019). South-western Ethiopia highlands hailed
as the most important place by Royal Botanic Gardens for genetic diversity, and distribu-
tion of Arabica coffee has lost 1/3 of its forest in the last 40 years (Belmaker 2016). The
expected loss due to climate change ranges from 65% bioclimatically favourable areas up
to 100% loss of indigenous Arabica coffee in worst cases (Davis et al. 2012). To this end,
the recommended remedy has been the in situ conservation of forest in its ecosystem to
sustain the genetic diversity of Arabica coffee and other essential plant gene pools for the
global environment (Krishnan 2013; Reichhuber and Requate 2012).
2.4 In situ conservation and wild coffee certification as half solution
The in situ conservation of wild species focuses on a genetically distinct group of taxa
(“the widespread species with a wide range of adaptation” like coffee) envisioned to main-
tain diverse natural species to evolve in the natural ecosystem. Since it involves complex
abiotic and biotic diversities at an ecosystem level, it is the best and dependable means of
genetic conservation (Gole et al. 2002; Tan and Tan 2001). The process involves identi-
fication of wild species followed by “survey of potential sites and designation of genetic
reserves by genetic variation within target species”. The species need to have economic
13
T. Woyesa, S. Kumar
and environmental significance to a wider world (Tan and Tan 2001; Eriksson et al. 1993).
Therefore, genetic conservation is meant to protect future evolution and to ensure the sus-
tenance of genetic variation for species development for present and future generations
(Eriksson et al. 1993). Since the wild coffee gene is insurance to coffee production if com-
mercial varieties are damaged by disease (Belmaker 2016), the south-west Ethiopian high-
land which is the core of genetic variation of wild Arabica coffees would be the best source
of breeding of adaptable coffee varieties and germplasm to improve species (Sylvain 1958;
Hein and Gatzweiler 2006).
Hirons et al. (2018) also suggested that maintaining Ethiopia’s coffee agro-ecosystem is
important not because of its contribution to livelihood for millions but also for the conser-
vation of global genetic diversity of Arabica coffee. Montagnon and Bouharmont (1996)
published their research work having identified two broad groups of Arabica coffee in Ethi-
opia based on genetic variation. The firs group was characterized as a more erect branch,
narrower leaves but more resistant to coffee leaf rust and coffee berry disease. This species
mainly found in the western side of the Great Rift Valley in south-western Ethiopian high-
lands and highly recommended for the enrichment of the genetic basis of cultivated arabica
germplasm. The evidence points out that the gene pool of Ethiopian highland coffee has
high economic and biological significance for the breeding of adaptable coffee varieties,
but the conservation effort failed to ensure the sustainability of the genetic diversity of wild
coffee (Hein and Gatzweiler 2006). As Fiona Hesselden, a researcher at the Centre for Sus-
tainable and Resilient Communities at the University of Huddersfield, once said;
“The majority of commercial coffee is descended from a small number of plants that
have been bred for several specific characteristics such as high yields and so relies
on a relatively narrow genetic range, making these plants vulnerable to diseases and
pests, an issue that is exacerbated by climate change. Wild coffee, on the other hand,
exhibits much greater genetic diversity, increasing its chances of adapting to new
challenges and reducing the possibility of extinction. It is of the utmost importance
that we retain a viable population of wild Arabica coffee plants to protect the eco-
nomic, social, and cultural benefits associated with Arabica coffee” (Belmaker 2016).
Genetic analysis has identified a difference in genetic variation between cultivated Ara-
bica coffee and sub-spontaneous accessions of arabica in south-west Ethiopia, the cradle of
arabica species. The primary centre of the genetic diversity of the Arabica coffee is south-
western Ethiopian highlands, the Boma Plateau and Mount Imatong of Sudan, and Mount
Marsabit of Kenya. However, the germplasm collected in the south-western highlands of
Ethiopia has greater diversity in its genetic makeup (Teketay 1999; Lashermes et al. 1996).
That is why Ethiopia usually escapes worldwide coffee epidemic diseases. Experts com-
mend that preservation of diverse genetic coffee species could be a guarantee for the unex-
pected natural catastrophe which may eliminate the whole species like what happened in
Sri Lanka it to that forced to abandon coffee production in favour of tea in 1869 (Teketay
1999). Therefore, in situ conservation is suggested for the genetic conservation of wild
arabica (Eriksson et al. 1993).
Nevertheless, farmers are clearing forests for agricultural purposes to compensate for
low yield earned from forest coffee. This process of forest fragmentation creates genetic
erosion, genetic drift and reduces gene flows, wherefore threatening the diversity and
survival of plant population (Hundera et al. 2013). Hence, coffee certification emerged
to provide a premium price for forest coffee as an incentive to producers’; thereby, tra-
ditional livelihoods based on forest coffee are maintained. Consequently, it was hoped to
reduce the possibility of forest degradation and improve income (Da Silva Neto et al. 2018;
13
Giovannucci et al. 2008; Lyngbæk et al. 2001; Schmitt and Grote 2008; Bray and Neilson
2017). The assumption says conventional or chemical stimulated coffee production system
clears forest, whereas semi-forest coffee keeps the relatively diverse ecosystem in place
(Rappole et al. 2003; Bray and Neilson 2017).
There have been mixed results observed attributed to certification, somehow increased
forest density and reduced degradation compared to non-certified areas in some places,
while sometimes no significant difference in the probability of deforestation was observed
in certified coffee forests and forests without coffee (Takahashi and Todo 2013; Perfecto
et al. 1996; Hundera et al. 2013; García-González et al. 2017). Consequently, wild cof-
fee certification already in place to discourage the expansion of agricultural land is not as
effective as thought (Schmitt et al. 2010). However, there is still compelling evidence of
improvement in forest density particularly in terms of big trees, but livelihood progress is
highly contested. Studies proved that certification alone not necessarily improve the liveli-
hood of farmers (Bray and Neilson 2017), but showed progress in social indicators with
little economic gains (Arnould et al. 2009; Maguire Rajpau et al. 2018). Although there
has been little effect on the livelihoods (Minten et al. 2018; El Ouaamari and Cochet 2014),
improvement in forest cover observed in places such as Colombia (Sanchez-Cuervo et al.
2012; Rueda et al. 2014). Generally, the certification programme somehow improved tree
cover but still failed to bring meaningful impact among the poor rural households. There-
fore, without economic gains farmers are still abandoning the forest and semi-forest cof-
fee system. Thus, coffee tourism would be expected to improve the livelihood of farmers,
which is sometimes missing in the certification programme.
2.5 Why sustainable livelihood model for coffee tourism is required?
The analysis of livelihood strategy helps to classify the member of households engaged in
each livelihood strategy and factors affecting the choice of strategy (Jiao et al. 2017). Live-
lihood is the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources), and activi-
ties required for a means of living (Carney 2003). Scoones (1998) has identified at least
four types of capitals necessary to understand livelihood. First, natural capital to denote
the natural resources in the area consists of soil, water, air, and environmental services.
Second, economic and financial capital to represent economic and financial assets the soci-
ety use to make living. Thirdly, human capital concerned about the skill and knowledge
used. Finally, social capital, where society engages in different kinds of networks, relation,
association by which livelihood strategy depends on. Livelihood strategies are the prod-
uct of societal capital (social, material, financial, physical, and others) and the indigenous
knowledge to manipulate capitals (Chambers and Conway 1992; Scoones 1998). Therefore,
addressing the livelihood needs of poor households requires analysis of activities engaged
based on the available livelihood assets to overcome shock and vulnerability and the role of
institution and context to determine the outcome (Scoones 1998; Helmore and Singh 2001;
Yi-ping et al. 2014; Jiao et al. 2017; Babulo et al. 2008).
The sustainable livelihood is the extension of sustainable concepts in livelihood study.
Sustainability concept is envisioned to assure socio-economic and environmental devel-
opment concurrently without compromising the ability of future generations to meet the
present need (United Nations 1987; United Nations, n.d.). Chambers and Conway (1992)
addressed the relationship between livelihood and sustainable livelihood as
13
T. Woyesa, S. Kumar
A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access)
and activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is sustainable which can
cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities
and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation;
and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global level
and in the short and long term (Chambers and Conway 1992)
The emergence of sustainable livelihood approach (SLA) in rural development dis-
course was a result of the failure of smallholding farming system to deliver poverty
alleviation (Shen et al. 2008). SLA requires livelihood diversification which is “the pro-
cess by which rural families construct a diverse portfolio of activities and social support
capabilities in order to survive and to improve their standards of living” (Ellis 1998,
2000). The point is that diversified livelihood is less vulnerable than less diversified
ones since it contributes to poverty alleviation, employment opportunity, and economic
growth (Woldehanna 2001; Loison 2015; World Bank 2007). However, there is lit-
tle effect among sub-Saharan poor households due to entry barriers, institutional, and
asset-related factors (Loison 2015). Subsequently, farmers have been abandoning major
farm fields in favour of wetlands, floodplains, and other biological threatened ecosys-
tems (Sakané et al. 2012).
In the case of south-western Ethiopia, forest dependence is deep so that it requires
equal consideration with farm activities (Angelsen and Wunder 2003). The dependence
decreases in diversified livelihood since the share of forest income about total income
decrease significantly results in less reliance on forest extraction due to opportunity cost
(Wei et al. 2016; Caviglia-Harriss and Sills 2005). Therefore, rural communities in this
region need income diversification not only for maintaining sustainable livelihood but
also to make sure of survival in a time of shocks, such as drought, pests, and famine
(Ellis and Freeman 2004; Timko and Waber 2010; Shackleton et al. 2007). That is why
researches are increasingly focusing on how to handle livelihood improvement and for-
est conservation simultaneously (Sunderlin et al. 2005). Based on the aforementioned
discussion a sustainable livelihood model for coffee tourism is adopted as a develop-
ment and conservation approach (Fig. 2).
This SLA livelihood approach framework for coffee tourism is a combination of cof-
fee, tourism, and sustainable livelihood. Livelihood diversification into coffee tourism
is determined by the accessibility of assets (natural, physical, human, financial, and
social), mediated by institutional process and organizational structures (the effect of
tourism policy, laws, and national and local government structure), leading to choice of
livelihood strategies (tourism, farm, or non-farm activities) which ultimately determine
outcome. All interactions operate under different contexts and conditions that hinder
or promote the system such as the effect of international trade, currency exchange, cli-
mate change, seasonality of tourist flow, etc. (Scoones 1998; Ellis 1998). Therefore, the
choice of livelihood strategy of a given household is determined by one or a combina-
tion of assets. For instance, in some places livelihood diversification into tourism is pri-
marily determined by human capital such as age, health, and education level, mediated
by institutional process that is government ability to provide for public services, poli-
cies regarding environment and management of tourism enterprises, licence, etc. (Avila-
Foucat and Rodríguez-Robayo 2018); for instance, the higher the average age and less
educated the household, there would be less chance to seek alternative non-agricultural
enterprises (Sakané et al. 2012). In the same token financial and natural assets are the
13
Fig. 2 Sustainable livelihood model to show coffee, tourism, conservation, and rural livelihood relation-
ship. Adopted from (Ambelu et al. 2018; Scoones 1998; Tao and Wall 2009)
main determining factors of diversification in some rural areas like Nigeria (Babatunde
and Qaim 2010).
Therefore, coffee tourism developed in this model expected to sustain households in
the time of shock and vulnerability context. As described above, the certification project
somehow conserved some tree species but failed to improve household income and liveli-
hood capability, as in that coffee tourism induced income may supplement the livelihood
improvement. It has to be noted that coffee tourism is not replacing other livelihoods but
is a means of diversification (Tao and Wall 2009). Therefore, the combination of sustain-
able livelihood approaches and coffee tourism on the proposed model addressed synergy
between coffee tourism and sustainable livelihood without altering already existing tradi-
tional livelihood altogether. As outlined in the scones 1998 model, this model also articu-
lates the relationship among livelihood assets, contexts, conditions, and trends, the role
of institutional process and organizational structures from local to international level to
13
T. Woyesa, S. Kumar
determine livelihood strategies and outcomes. The outcomes in this model, household
income and livelihood capability enhanced, ensured the genetic conservation of wild Ara-
bica species, improved quality of wild Arabica coffee, and ultimately boost sustainability
of montane forest.
3 Conclusion
This paper addressed the potential and prospect of coffee tourism in the birthplace of cof-
fee, south-western Ethiopian highlands. It is an extension of a theoretical discussion of
sustainable tourism in relation to rural community livelihood in the montane forest region
bearing in mind the conservation of biodiversity, especially the critical need of sustaining
the gene pool of wild Arabica coffee. The critical analysis found the moist Afromontane
forest, and the wild Arabic coffee is highly threatened to the extent of extinction mainly
due to the expansion of agriculture and climate change. The finding revealed that the pri-
mary reason for the expansion of agriculture to the forest and the resulted destruction of
the gene pool of endemic wild Arabic coffee is the prevalence of vulnerable livelihood
strategy and the need to improve income. The previous conservation effort in place is a
coffee certification project, which intended to provide a premium price for forest coffee
so that conservation and livelihood need meet. This study uncovered that certification has
some positive impact on the conservation of big tree species but failed to deliver livelihood
improvement; consequently, the project did not stop deterioration of forest due to limitation
in economic gain. As the study shows when the share of forest income in relation to total
income decrease, communities need of forest resource decrease significantly and vice versa
(Wei et al. 2016; Caviglia-Harriss and Sills 2005).
Therefore, a development policy to deal with both conservation and livelihood improve-
ment is needed. To this end, the study adopted a sustainable livelihood model for coffee
tourism as a conservation and development approach. This model offered coffee tourism
as a value addition on the previous certification project so that income gained from tour-
ism discourages the expansion of forest threatening livelihood. Consequently, conservation
and livelihood needs would meet simultaneously. Coffee tourism in rural south-western
Ethiopia is not a substitute for the already existing diversification scheme rather an addition
to the livelihood capability of the forest-dependent community to unleash the competitive
livelihood. One of the significant contributions of the model besides economic and con-
servation is the recommendation to establish a niche coffee tourism destination in south-
western Ethiopia. Future research should consider an empirical study based on actually
collected data from farmers in the coffee regions to determine the role of coffee tourism in
their livelihood.
Acknowledgements The completion of this study would not have been possible without the support of my
advisor Dr. Satinder Kumar who encouraged me in every step of the research work, and also I have to extend
my thanks to the scholarship provided by Punjabi University. I also owe my special gratitude to agriculture
and rural development officials and experts in Sheka and Bench-Maji zone who provided the necessary
documents I needed.
13
References
Aerts, R., Hundera, K., Berecha, G., Gijbels, P., Baeten, M., Van Mechelen, M., et al. (2011). Semi-forest
coffee cultivation and the conservation of Ethiopian Afromontane rainforest fragments. Forest Ecol-
ogy and Management, 261(6), 1034–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.12.025.
Agize, M., & Van der, Z. (2016). Spice and medicinal plants production and value chain analysis from
South to West ethiopia. Journal of Pharmacy and Alternative Medicine, 10 www.iiste.org.
Alemayehu, D., & Merga, W. (2017). Current status of Arabica coffee (Coffea Arabica L. genetic resource:
conservations, constraints and mitigation strategies in ethiopia. International Journal of Research
Studies in Science, Engineering and Technology, 4(10), 1–11.
Ambelu, G., Lovelock, B., & Tucker, H. (2018). Empty bowls: Conceptualising the role of tourism
in contributing to sustainable rural food security. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1511719.
Angelsen, A., & Wunder, S. (2003). Exploring the forest-poverty link: Key concepts, issues, and research
implications. Bogor: Centre for International Forestry Research.
Arnould, E., Plastina, A., & Ball, D. (2009). Does fair trade deliver on its core value proposition? Effects on
income, educational attainment, and health in three countries. Journal of Public Policy and Market-
ing, 28(2), 186–201.
Avila-Foucat, V., & Rodríguez-Robayo, K. (2018). Determinants of livelihood diversification: The case
wildlife tourism in four coastal communities in Oaxaca, Mexico. Tourism Management, 69, 223–231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.06.021.
Babatunde, R., & Qaim, M. (2010). Off-farm labor market participation in rural nigeria: driving forces and
household access. In 5th IZA/world bank conference: employment and development (pp. 1–28). Cape
Town.
Babulo, B., Muys, B., Nega, F., Tollens, E., Nyssen, J., Deckers, J., et al. (2008). Household livelihood
strategies and forest dependence in the highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Agricultural System,
2(98), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2008.06.001.
Bekele, M., & Tesfaye, Y. (2013). Non-Timber Forest Products—Participatory Forest Management (NTFP_
PFM): Research and Development Project, South West Ethiopia. NTFP-PFM South-West Ethiopia.
Retrieved October 25, 2018, from NTFP-PFM South-West Ethiopia.
Belmaker, G. (2016). This is why your coffee beans matter to the planet. Global Forest. Retrieved August 7,
2018, from https://news.mongabay.com/2016/11/this-is-why-your-coffee-beans-matter-to-the-planet/.
Bickford, R. (2019). This report contains assessments of commodity and trade issues made by usda staff and
not necessarily statements of official U.S. government policy required report-public distribution ethi-
opia coffee annual coffee annual report. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service: Washington, DC, USA.
Boansi, D. (2013). Competitiveness and determinants of coffee exports, producer price and production for
Ethiopia. Retrieved October 18, 2019, from Munich Personal RePEc Archive: https://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/48869/.
Bognetteau, E., Haile, A., & Wiersum, K. (2007). Linking forests and people: a potential for sustainable
development of the southwest Ethiopian highlands. In Participatory Forest Management (PFM), Bio-
diversity and Livelihoods in Africa (pp. 36–53). Addis Ababa: Farm Africa.
Boniface, P. (2003). Tasting tourism: Travelling for food and drink. New York: Routledge.
Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2),
22–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027.
Brandth, B., & Haugen, M. (2011). Farm diversification into tourism implications for social identity? Jour-
nal of Rural Studies, 27(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.09.002.
Bray, J., & Neilson, J. (2017). Reviewing the impacts of coffee certification programs on smallholder liveli-
hoods. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management, 13(1),
216–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1316520.
Buechley, E., Sekercioglu, C., Atickem, A., Gebremichael, G., Ndungu, J., Mahamued, B., et al. (2015).
Importance of Ethiopian shade coffee farms for forest bird conservation. Biological Conservation,
188, 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.011.
Busby, G., & Rendle, S. (2000). The transition from tourism on farms to farm tourism. Tourism Manage-
ment, 21, 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00011-X.
Carney, D. (2003). Sustainable livelihood approaches: Progress and possibilities of change (p. 64). London:
Department for International Development.
Caviglia-Harriss, J., & Sills, E. (2005). Land use and income diversification: Comparing traditional and
colonist populations in the Brazilian Amazon. Agricultural Economics. https://doi.org/10.111
1/j.1574-0862.2005.00238.x.
13
T. Woyesa, S. Kumar
Chambers, R., & Conway, G. R. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st Cen-
tury. Institute of Development Studies(UK).
Cheng, S., Hu, J., Fox, D., & Zhang, Y. (2012). Tea tourism development in Xinyang, China: Stakeholders’
view. Tourism Management Perspectives, 2–3, 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2011.12.001.
Craves, J. (2011). How “wild” is Ethiopian forest coffee? Coffee and Conservation. Retrieved November 21,
2019, from https://www.coffeehabitat.com/2011/02/ethiopia-wild-forest-coffee/.
Crawford, J. (1852). History of coffee. Journal of Statistical Society of London, 1(15), 50–58.
Da Silva Neto, F. J., Morinigo, K., de França Guimarães, N., de Souza, G. A., De Souza, M., Solf, R., et al.
(2018). Shade trees spatial distribution and its effect on grains and beverage quality of shaded coffee
trees. Journal of Food Quality. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7909467.
Daviron, B., & Ponte, S. (2005). The coffee paradox. Global markets, commodity trade and the elusive
promise of development. New York: Zed Books Ltd.
Davis, A., Gole, T., Baena, S., & Moat, J. (2012). The impact of climate change on indigenous arabica cof-
fee (Coffea arabica): Predicting future trends and identifying priorities. PLoS ONE, 7, 11. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047981.
Dietz, T., Chong, A., Grabs, J., & Kilian, B. (2019). How effective is multiple certification in improving
the economic conditions of smallholder farmers? Evidence from an impact evaluation in Colombia’s
Coffee Belt. The Journal of Development Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2019.1632433.
Diro, S., Erko, B., & Fikrie, K. (2019). Production and adoption constraints of improved coffee varieties in
Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia. Journal of Scientific Agriculture, 3, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.25081
/jsa.2019.v3.5450.
El Ouaamari, S., & Cochet, H. (2014). The role of coffee in the development of Southwest Ethiopia’s
Forests: Farmers’ strategies, investor speculation, and certification projects. Society and Natural
Resources: An International Journal, 27(2), 200–2014. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.84799
7.
Ellis, F. (1998). Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. Journal of Development Studies.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389808422553.
Ellis, F. (2000). The determinants of rural livelihood diversification in developing countries. Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 51(2), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2000.tb01229.x.
Ellis, F., & Freeman, H. A. (2004). Rural livelihoods and poverty reduction strategies in four African coun-
tries. Journal of Development studies, 40(4), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380410001673175.
Eriksson, G., Namkoong, G., & Roberds, J. (1993). Dynamic gene conservation for uncertain futures. Forest
Ecology and Management, 62, 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(93)90039-P.
Eusebio, C., Carneiro, M., Kastenholz, E., & Figueiredo, E. (2017). Who is consuming the countryside?
An activity-based segmentation analysis of the domestic rural tourism market in Portugal. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 31, 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.12.006.
Frater, J. (1983). Farm tourism in England-planning, funding, promotion and some lessons from Europe.
Tourism Management, 4(3), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(83)90061-4.
García-González, A., Damon, A., Raventós, J., Riverón-Giró, M. E., & Solís-Montero, L. (2017). Impact
of different shade coffee management scenarios, on a population of Oncidium poikilostalix (Orchi-
daceae), in Soconusco, Chiapas. Mexico. Plant Ecology and Diversity, 10(2–3), 185–196. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17550874.2017.1315840.
Gervase, W., Smith, C., & Topic, S. (Eds.). (2003). The global coffee economy in Africa, Asia, and Latin
America, 1500–1989. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Giovannucci, D., Potts, J., Killian, B., Wunderlich, C., Shuller, S., Soto, G., et al. (2008). Seeking Sustain-
ability: COSA preliminary analysis of sustainability initiatives in the coffee sector. Winnipeg: IISD.
Gobeze, T., Bekele, M., & Kassa, H. (2009). Participatory forest management and its impacts on liveli-
hoods and forest status: The case of Bonga forest in Ethiopia. International Forestry Review, 11(3),
346–358.
Gole, W., Borsch, T., & Denich, M. (2008). Floristic composition and environmental factors characterizing
coffee forests in southwest Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 2138–2150. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.12.028.
Gole, T. W., Denich, M., Teketay, D., & Velek, P. (2002). Human impacts on the coffea arabica genepool
in ethiopia and the need for its in situ conservation. In J. Engels, V. Rao, A. Brown, & M. Jackson
(Eds.), Managing plant genetic diversity (pp. 237–247). Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Gole, T., & Senbeta, F. (2008). Sustainable management and promotion of forest coffee in Bale, Ethiopia.
Bale Eco-Region Sustainable Management Programme SOS Sahel/FARM-Africa.
Guess, R. (2018). Top Coffee Producing Countries of 2018: Largest Coffee Producers. Retrieved from Cof-
fee Maker: https://coffeemakered.com/top-coffee-producing-countries/.
13
Hall, C., & Mitchell, R. (2000). Wine tourism in the mediterranean: A tool for restructuring and devel-
opment. Thunderbird International Business Review, 42(4), 445–465. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-
6874(200007/08)42:43.0.CO;2-H.
Hein, L., & Gatzweiler, F. (2006). The economic value of coffee (Coffea arabica) genetic resources. Eco-
logical Economics, 60(1), 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.022.
Helmore, K., & Singh, N. (2001). Sustainable livelihoods: Building on the wealth of the poor. Virginia:
Kumarian Press.
Hernández, J. M., Suárez-Vega, R., & Santana-Jiménez, Y. (2016). The inter-relationship between rural and
mass tourism: The case of Catalonia, Spain. Tourism Management, 54, 43–57.
Hirons, M., Mehrabi, Z., Gonfa, T., Morel, A., Gole, T., McDermott, C., et al. (2018). Pursuing climate
resilient coffee in Ethiopia–A critical review. Geoforum, 91, 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geofo
rum.2018.02.032.
Hundera, K., Aerts, R., De Beenhouwer, M., Van Overtveld, K., Helsen, K., Muys, B., et al. (2013). Both
forest fragmentation and coffee cultivation negatively affect epiphytic orchid diversity in Ethio-
pian moist evergreen Afromontane forests. Biological Conservation, 159, 285–291. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.029.
Hwang, J., & Lee, S. (2015). The effect of the rural tourism policy on non-farm income in South Korea.
Tourism Management, 46, 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.07.018.
Ilbery, B., Bowler, I., Clark, G., Crockett, A., & Shaw, A. (1998). Farm-based tourism as an alternative farm
enterprise: A case study from the Northern Pennines, England. Regional Studies, 32(4), 355–364.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409850117816.
Janishevski, L., Noonan-Mooney, K., & Gidda, S. B. (2008). Protected areas in today’s world: Their values
and benefits for the welfare of the planet. CBD Technical Series (36).
Jeffrey, J. (2017). Bonga: Ethiopia’s epicenter of Arabica coffee—and so much more. MarketPlace Africa.
Retrieved March 1, 2019, from https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ethiopia-coffee-origins-bonga/
index.html.
Jha, S., Bacon, C., Philpott, S., Mendez, V., Laderach, P., & Rice, R. (2014). Shade coffee: Update on a dis-
appearing refuge for biodiversity. Bio Science, 64(5), 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu038.
Jiao, X., Poulito, M., & Walelign, S. (2017). Livelihood strategies and dynamics in Rural Cambodia. World
Development, 97, 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.019.
Jolliffe, L. (Ed.). (2010). Coffee culture, destinations and tourism. Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Karlsson, H., & Karlsson, J. (2009). Coffee tourism: A community development goal. Tourism. Retrieved
June 12, 2018, from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:220789/FULLTEXT02.pdf.
Krishnan, S. (2013). Current status of coffee genetic resources and implications for COnservation. CAB
Reviews, 8(16), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR20128016_2013.
Kuma, T., Dereje, M., Hirvonen, K., & Minten, B. (2018). Cash crops and food security: Evidence from
Ethiopian smallholder coffee producers. Journal of Development Studies, 55(6), 1267–1284. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2018.1425396.
Lane, B. (1994). What is rural tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2(1–2), 7–21. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09669589409510680.
Lashermes, P., Trouslot, A. F., Combes, M., & Charrier, A. (1996). Genetic diversity for RAPD markers
between cultivated and wild accessions of Coffea arabica. Euphytica, 85, 59–64.
Lemenih, M. (2013). Bamboo forest restoration through PFM: Experience from Masha. Retrieved August 6,
2019, from NTF-PFM: www.hud.ac.uk/wetlandsandforest/.
Loison, S. (2015). Rural livelihood diversification in Sub-Saharan Africa: A literature review. The Journal
of Development Studies, 51(9), 1125–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1046445.
Luttinger, N., & Dicum, G. (2006). The coffee book: Anatomy of industry from crop to the last drop. New
York: New Press.
Lyngbæk, A., Muschler, R., & Sinclair, F. (2001). Productivity and profitability of multistrata organic
versus conventional coffee farms in Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems, 53(2), 205–213. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:101333272.
Lyon, S. (2013a). Coffee tourism and community development in Guatemala. Human Organization, 27,
188–198.
Lyon, S. (2013b). Coffee tourism in Chiapas: Recasting colonial narratives for contemporary markets. Cul-
ture, Agriculture, Food and Environment, 35(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/cuag.12016.
Maguire Rajpau, V., Rajpaul, V., McDermott, C., & Guedes Pinto, L. F. (2018). Coffee certification in Bra-
zil: Compliance with social standards and its implications for social equity. Environment, Develop-
ment and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0275-z.
13
T. Woyesa, S. Kumar
McClumpha, A. (1988). The trading of green coffee. In R. Clarke & Macrae (Eds.), Commercial and tech-
nico-legal aspects. London: Elsevier Applied Science.
McGehee, N., & Andereck, K. (2004). Factors predicting rural residents’ support of tourism. Journal of
Travel Research, 43(2), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287504268234.
Melaku, E., Zeleke, E., & Teketay, D. (2014). Non-timber forest products and household incomes in
Bonga forest area, southwestern Ethiopia. Journal of Forestry Research, 25(1), 215–223. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11676-014-0447-0.
Minten, M., Engida, E., & Tamru, S. (2018). Tracking the quality premium of certified coffee: Evidence
from ethiopia. World Development, 101, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.010.
Montagnon, C., & Bouharmont, P. (1996). Multivariate analysis of phenotypic diversity of Coffea arabica.
Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 43, 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00123274.
NTFP-PFM. (2009). NTFP–PFM R & D Project carbon offsets plan vivo project concept note. Retrieved
from NTFP-PFM South-West Ethiopia Forested Landscape and Livelihoods. Retrieved September 18,
2019, from http://www.planvivo.org/docs/PIN_Ethiopia_NTFP_project1.pdf.
NTFP-PFM. (2013). Atlas of Maps Land Cover Change 1973–2013. Retrieved from NTFP-PFM South-
West Ethiopia Forested Landscape and Livelihoods. Retrieved December 19, 2018, from http://wetla
ndsandforests.hud.ac.uk/ntfp-pfm/pdfs/Briefi ng%20Notes/Atlas%20of%20NTFP%20Project%20Are
a%20Land%20Cover%20Change.pdf.
Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., Hanson, P., & Cartin, V. (1996). Arthropod biodiversity loss and the trans-
formation of a tropical agro-ecosystem. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6(7), 935–945. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1018359429106.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden:
Blackwell Publications.
Ponte, S. (2002). The ‘Latte Revolution’? Regulation, markets and consumption in the global coffee chain.
World Development, 30(7), 1099–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00032-3.
Potočnik-Slavič, I., & Schmitz, S. (2013). Farm tourism across Europe. European Countryside, 4, 265–274.
https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2013-0017.
Rappole, J., King, D., & Vega Rivera, J. (2003). Coffee and conservation. Conservation Biology, 17(1), 334–
336. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01548.x.
Reay, D. (2019). Climate-smart food. Switzerland: Palgrave.
Reichhuber, A., & Requate, T. (2012). Alternative use systems for the remaining ethiopian cloud forest and
the role of Arabica coffee—A cost-benefit analysis. Ecological Economics, 75, 102–113. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.01.006.
Richards, G. (2001). Gastronomy: An essential ingredient in tourism production and consumption? In A.-M.
Hjalager & G. Richards (Eds.), Tourism and Gastronomy (pp. 3–20). London: Routledge.
Rid, W., Ezeuduji, I., & Pröbstl-Haider, U. (2014). Segmentation by motivation for rural tourism activities in
The Gambia. Tourism Management, 40, 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.05.006.
Rueda, X., & Lambin, E. (2013). Responding to globalization: Impacts of certification on Colombian small-
scale coffee growers. Ecology and Society, 18(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05595-180321.
Rueda, X., Thomas, N., & Lambin, E. (2014). Eco-certification and coffee cultivation enhance tree cover and
forest connectivity in the Colombian coffee landscapes. Regional Environmental Change, 15(1), 25–33.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0607-y.
Sakané, N., Becker, M., Langensiepen, M., & van Wijk, M. (2012). Typology of smallholder production sys-
tems in small East-African Wetlands. Wetlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0355-z.
Sanchez-Cuervo, A., Aide, T., Clark, M., & Etter, A. (2012). Land cover change in Colombia: Surprising
forest recovery trends between 2001 and 2010. PLoS ONE, 7(8), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ
al.pone.0043943.
Schmitt, C., & Grote, U. (2008). Wild coffee production in Ethiopia: the role of coffee certification for forest
conservation. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://www.biomassnet.org/downloads/wild-coffee-produ
ction-in-ethiopia-the-role-of-coffee-certification-for-forest-conservation/.
Schmitt, B., Senbeta, F., Denich, M., Preisinger, H., & Boehmer, H. (2010). Wild coffee management and plant
diversity in the montane rainforest of southwestern ethiopia. African Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/1
0.1111/j.1365-2028.2009.01084.x.
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Institute of Development Studies.
Senbeta, F., & Denich, M. (2006). Effects of wild coffee management on species diversity in the Afromon-
tane rainforests of ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management, 23, 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forec
o.2006.05.064.
Shackleton, C., Shackleton, S., Buiten, E., & Bird, N. (2007). The importance of dry woodlands and forests in
rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(5), 558–577.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2006.03.004.
13
Sharpley, R. (2007). Flagship attractions and sustainable rural tourism development: The case of the Alnwick
Garden, England. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost604.0.
Sharpley, R., & Jepson, D. (2011). Rural tourism: A spiritual experience. Annal of Tourism Research, 38(1),
52–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.05.002.
Shen, F., Hughey, K., & Simmons, D. (2008). Connecting the sustainable livelihoods approach and tourism:
A review of the literature. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 15(1), 19–31. https://doi.
org/10.1375/jhtm.15.19.
Shenkute, A., Getachew, Y., Assefa, D., Adgaba, N., Ganga, G., & Abebe, W. (2012). Honey production sys-
tems (Apis mellifera L.) in Kaffa, Sheka and Bench-Maji zones of Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural
Extension and Rural Development, 4(19), 528–541. https://doi.org/10.5897/jaerd12.088.
Shoo, R., & Songorwa, A. (2013). Contribution of eco-tourism to nature conservation and improvement of
livelihoods around Amani nature reserve, Tanzania. Journal of Ecotourism, 12(2), 75–89. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14724049.2013.818679.
Strand, O. (2012). Coffee is not dead–but it is losing its wild side. Opinion Cofee. Retrieved March 6, 2019,
from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/13/coffee-not-dead-wild-ethiopia.
Sunderlin, W., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L., et al. (2005). Livelihoods, forests,
and conservation in developing Countries: An overview. World Development, 33(9), 1383–1402.
Sylvain, P. (1958). Ethiopian coffee—its significance to world coffee problems. Economic Botany, 12(2), 111–
139. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0286276.
Takahashi, R., & Todo, Y. (2013). The impact of a shade coffee certification program on forest conservation:
A case study from a wild coffee forest in Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental Management, 130, 48–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.025.
Takahashi, R., & Todo, Y. (2016). Coffee certification and forest quality: Evidence from a wild coffee forest in
ethiopia. World Development, 92, 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.001.
Tan, A., & Tan, A. (2001). In situ conservation of wild species related to crop plants: The case of Turkey. In J.
Engels, V. Rao, A. Brown, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Managing plant genetic diversity (pp. 195–204). Wall-
ingford: CABI Publisher.
Tao, T., & Wall, G. (2009). A livelihood approach to sustainability. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
14(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941660902847187.
Teixeira, V., & Ribeiro, N. (2013). The lamprey and the partridge: A multi-sited ethnography of food tourism
as an agent of preservation and disfigurement in Central Portugal. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 8(2–3),
193–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2013.767813.
Teketay, T. (1999). History, botany and ecological requirements of coffee. Walia, 20, 28–50.
Tibebu, H. (2018). Ethiopia: Keep walking—is coffee tourism possible in ethiopia? Retrieved January 5, 2019,
from allAfrica.com: https://allafrica.com/stories/201803010498.html.
Timko, J., & Waber, K. (2010). The socio-economic contribution of non-timber forest products to rural liveli-
hoods in Sub-Saharan Africa: Knowledge gaps and new directions. International Forestry Review, 12(3),
284–294.
UNESCO. (2011). Coffee cultural landscape of Colombia. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://whc.unesc
o.org/en/list/1121/: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1121/.
United Nations. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common
Future. Retrieved August 9, 2019, from https://www.are.admin.ch/are/en/home/sustainable-development/
international-cooperation/2030agenda/un--milestones-in-sustainable-development/1987brundtland-repor
t.html.
UNWTO. (2018). Wine Tourism as a Tool for Rural Development. 3rd UNWTO Global Conference on Wine
Tourism (pp. 1–2). Chisinau: UNWTO. Retrieved September 11, 2019, from http://affiliatemember
s.unwto.org/event/3rd-unwto-global-conference-wine-tourism.
Vellema, W., Casanova, A., Gonzale, C., & D’Haese, M. (2015). The effect of specialty coffee certification
on household livelihood strategies and specialization. Food Policy, 57, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodpol.2015.07.003.
Veselinovic, M. (2015). Ethiopia—a land where coffee meets tradition. CNN ROAD Ethiopia. Retrieved March
1, 2019, from https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/01/africa/ethiopia-coffee-industry/index.html.
WCC-PFM. (2014). Wild Coffee Conservation through Participatory Forest Management: Communities and
Government Institutions Capacity Building Project (WCC-PFM/CGICB). Orientation and Review Work-
shop on Participatory Forest Managemen. Mizan-Aman: CSRC. Retrieved from CSRC Forests and Wet-
lands Projects: http://wetlandsandforests.hud.ac.uk/forests/publications/Booklet2.
Wei, D., Chao, H., & Yali, W. (2016). Role of income diversification in reducing forest reliance: Evidence from
1838 rural households. Journal of Forest Economics, 22, 68–79.
Wilson, S., Fesenmaire, D., Fesenmaire, J., & Van Es, J. (2001). Factors for success in rural tourism develop-
ment. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750104000203.
13
T. Woyesa, S. Kumar
Woldehanna, T. (2001). Economic analysis and policy implications of farm and off-farm employment: A case
study in the tigray region of northern Ethiopia. Wageningen Agricultural University, Agricultural Eco-
nomics and Rural. Wageningen: Van Wageningen Universiteit.
World Bank. (2007). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington: World Bank.
Union Hand Roasted Coffee. (n.d.). Wutete, Yayu Wild Forest Coffee Ethiopia. Retrieved November 19, 2018,
from Union Hand Roasted Coffee: https://www.unionroasted.com/coffees/microlots/wutete-yayu-wild-
forest-coffee.html.
United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainable Development. Retrieved from General Assembly of the United Nations.
Retrieved June 8, 2019, from http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/65/issues/sustdev.shtml.
Yi-ping, F., Fan, J., Shen, M.-Y., & Song, M.-Q. (2014). Sensitivity of livelihood strategy to livelihood capital
in mountain areas: Empirical analysis based on different settlements in the upper reaches of the Minjiang
River, China. Ecological Indicators, 38, 225–235.
Yun, O. (2014). Coffee Tourism in ethiopia: Opportunities, challenges, and initiatives. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Exeter, Geography.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13

Potential of Coffee Tourism For Rural Development in Ethiopia A Sustainable Livelihood Approach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Potential of Coffee Tourism For Rural Development in Ethiopia A Sustainable Livelihood Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environment, Development and Sustainability